Paper ID #37425
Overview of Standards for Technological and Engineering
Literacy (Other)
Philip Reed
Philip A. Reed, PhD, DTE, is a Professor in the Darden College of Education and Professional Studies at Old Dominion
University in Norfolk, Virginia. Dr. Reed was the 2020-2021 President of the International Technology and Engineering
Educators Association (ITEEA). Dr. Reed was the ITEEA Region One Director from 2015-2017 where he helped
establish the ITEEA China International Center and assisted with the implementation of the Engineering by Design (EbD)
curriculum in Kuwait. In November 2019 he represented ITEEA at the Asia STEM Summit in Cebu, Philippines. He has
also served as secretary and vice president of the Council on Technology and Engineering Teacher Education (CTETE),
an affiliate council of ITEEA.
Kelly Dooley (Executive Director/CEO)
Kelly Dooley joined ITEEA as Executive Director/CEO in August 2021, bringing over 8 years of association management
experience, including a proven track record of working collaboratively with volunteer Boards and Committees,
implementing professional development programs, and supporting the development of industry standards. To complement
everything she has learned on-the-job, in 2020, Kelly completed her master’s degree in management, specializing in
nonprofits and associations, from University of Maryland, further equipping her with knowledge of organizational theory
and behavior, strategic planning and implementation, and process and outcome evaluation. Her creative problem-solving
approach to association challenges, strong leadership and communication skills, and commitment to constant growth and
improvement will be an asset to ITEEA. Prior to joining the association world, Kelly completed her bachelor’s degree in
architectural engineering and practiced as a structural engineer for 5 years. Kelly is licensed as a Professional Engineer
(P.E.) and actively pursues professional development opportunities through organizations such as the American Society of
Association Executives (ASAE) and Toastmasters International. Kelly is truly passionate about STEM education and
attributes much of her career success to the foundation built through her own STEM journey and a hands-on, systems-
thinking approach to learning and development. She is excited to serve the ITEEA community of educators and advance
technological and engineering capabilities for all.
Tyler Love
Tyler S. Love, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of elementary/middle grades STEM education and the Director of the
Capital Area Institute for Mathematics and Science (CAIMS) at The Pennsylvania State University’s Capital Campus. He
was previously an Associate Professor and Coordinator of Technology and Engineering Education at the University of
Maryland Eastern Shore. His research interests include safety and liability in STEM education labs and makerspaces,
teacher preparation in STEM, and physical computing. He co-authored the free electronic book co-published in May 2022
by ITEEA, ASEE, and NSELA titled "Safer Engineering and CTE Instruction: A National STEM Education Imperative.
What the Data Tells Us".
Scott Bartholomew
Scott R. Bartholomew is an assistant professor of Technology & Engineering studies at Brigham Young University. He is
a Fulbright Scholar (Philippines) and a former middle-school teacher. His research interests revolve around adaptive
comparative judgment, STEM professional development, and design education. He and his wife Julie are the parents of
five children and they love living in the mountains of Utah.
© American Society for Engineering Education, 2022
Powered by www.slayte.com
Overview of Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (Other)
In 2020, the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA)
published Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy: The Role of Technology and
Engineering in STEM Education (STEL) [1]. These standards open with a clear rationale why all
Pk-12 students should study technology and engineering:
Technology and engineering are pervasive in all aspects of our lives. Every human
activity is dependent upon the products, systems, and processes created to help
grow food, provide shelter, communicate, work, and recreate. As the world grows
more complex, it is increasingly important for everyone to understand more about
technology and engineering [1, p. 1].
The goal of STEL is not to turn Pk-12 students into technologists or engineers—although many
students may end up pursuing these career paths—rather STEL was created to broaden all
student’s technological and engineering literacy so they can make informed decisions about the
technologies they encounter in the world around them, and better contribute to their design,
development, and use. This paper will provide a brief history of Pk-12 technology and
engineering standards in the United States, an overview of STEL [1], and recommendations for
STEL implementation.
A brief history of Pk-12 technology and engineering standards in the United States
Technology and engineering education standards in the United States began with the 1929
publication Improving Instruction in Industrial Arts: Bulletin on Standards of Attainment in
Industrial Arts Teaching [2]. These early standards were highly prescriptive and organized
around three constructs that continue to shape the field: knowing, doing, and being (i.e., worthy
attitudes and habits) [3]. These standards, published by the American Vocational Association
(AVA) [2], were widely distributed in the 1930’s and 1940’s. For many decades, these standards
were the only option for teacher utilization (e.g., there was a 40+ year gap in standards
development until a research group affiliated with the American Industrial Arts Association
(AIAA, now ITEEA) released Standards for Industrial Arts Programs [4] in 1981). During the
1980s and corresponding with the release of Standards for Industrial Arts Programs, the
technology and engineering education profession was transitioning from a content grounded in
industrial practices of the day to a content base that more broadly reflected technological
products, systems, and processes. This paradigm shift brought about a name change and cursory
update of the AIAA standards in 1985 to Standards for Technology Education Programs [5].
ITEEA’s Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (STL) [6]
was developed throughout the 1990’s, published in 2000, and last updated in 2007. The
development of STL was part of the Technology for All Americans (TfAA) project, funded by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA),which resulted in the publication of several other significant documents beyond STL,
including A Rationale and Structure for the Study of Technology (1996) and Advancing
Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development, and
Program Standards (2003) [3].
Disciplines outside of technology and engineering (e.g., social studies, mathematics, science, and
instructional technology) often include technology and engineering ideas, concepts, and practices
in their standards, albeit to differing degrees [7], [8]. Of the disciplines outside of technology and
engineering, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) [9] have the strongest connections
to, and the most crossover with, technology and engineering education [10]. Science, technology,
society, and the environment connections are woven throughout the natural sciences disciplines
in NGSS and, most notable among these connections is that engineering design has been raised to
the same level as scientific inquiry in NGSS with science and engineering practices woven
throughout. These developments in NGSS are a significant milestone towards infusing
technology and engineering into a core Pk-12 discipline. Beyond the additional content and
pedagogical knowledge required of science educators to teach engineering content and practices
[11], concerns have been raised about science educators’ preparation to safely teach engineering
concepts which can involve equipment, materials, and/or processes requiring unique training and
expertise [10], [12], [13]. It is important to note, however, that the stated goal of NGSS’s
inclusion of technology and engineering practices is to perpetuate the study of science and NGSS
is explicit that the included engineering content may not be deep enough for dedicated
technology and engineering courses:
The decision to integrate engineering design into the science disciplines is not
intended either to encourage or discourage development of engineering courses ...
... The engineering design standards included in the NGSS could certainly be a
component of such courses but most likely do not represent the full scope of such
courses or an engineering pathway. Rather, the purpose of the NGSS is to
emphasize the key knowledge and skills that all students need in order to engage
fully as workers, consumers, and citizens in 21st century society [9, p. 107].
In 2009, the National Academy of Engineering and the National Research Council published
Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects [14].
The committee recommended against the creation of separate engineering standards, partly
because they would largely duplicate ITEEA’s STL [6]. By 2016, however, research indicated
that STL required updating, so ITEEA sought funding and began the revision process [15].
Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL)
A challenge in communicating a clear picture of technological and engineering literacy is that it
encompasses a broad area of human activity, one that is constantly evolving. Additionally, core
subjects such as mathematics and science have long histories and clearly articulated content at
the Pk-12 level while technology and engineering are not as well understood at this level and
have a stronger history at the tertiary level of education [16]. The recently released STEL [1] take
into account the dynamic nature of the discipline as well as contemporary research in the
development of academic standards. The development of STEL was supported by the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and the Technical Foundation of America and is a significant update
on ITEEA’s STL [6].
STEL defines the field of Pk-12 technology and engineering education as a set of eight core
disciplinary standards and eight practices that are widely applied across a range of eight
technology and engineering contexts (Figure 1). Students should study all eight standards and
apply all eight practices in a variety of contexts. Figure 1 should be thought of as a set of three
spinning octagons where standards, practices, and contexts can be rotated and aligned to develop
a particular unit or lesson.
Figure 1
Organization of Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy [1, p. 11]
Each of the eight STEL standards, shown in the innermost octagon (gold), are explained with a
brief narrative containing several key ideas that provide detail, or broad understandings, of the
standard. Within each standard, there are benchmarks provided by grade band (Pk-2, 3-5, 6-8,
and 9-12) that detail what students should know and be able to do within the specified context.
Benchmarks are written with active, measurable verbs to facilitate unit and lesson planning as
well as assessments. Additionally, each of the 142 benchmarks align with one or more of the
domains of learning – cognitive, psychomotor, and/or affective – and ITEEA offers an online
resource to aid curriculum developers and classroom teachers in making these connections. Each
of these three domains are also correlated to the technology and engineering dimensions of
knowing, thinking, and/or doing and the student outcomes of knowledge, skills, or dispositions
(Table 1). For example, a benchmark in the P-2 grade band that is purely knowledge-based, such
as “Explain ways that technology helps with everyday tasks,” aligns with the cognitive domain
of learning only and can therefore be achieved through knowing and thinking.
Table 1
Alignment of the domains of learning, technology and engineering dimensions, and student
outcomes [1, p.121].
STEL is designed for all students to apply the eight technology and engineering practices,
reflected in the middle (red) of the octogon. These practices were derived from current research
(e.g., NGSS science and engineering practices, 21st century skills, and engineering habits of
mind). Table 2 illustrates the eight technology and engineering practices across the grade bands,
and it is important to note the increasing complexity of the verbs (i.e., practices) as students
progress through grade bands.
The outermost (blue) octagon in the STEL graphic organizer (Figure 1) represents the eight major
contexts in which we study technology and engineering. These have been expanded from the
Designed World section of STL [6] and offer curriculum developers and teachers more flexibility
in how they are addressed. The STEL authors designed the contexts to be broadly applicable to
state/province or local school system models of instruction. Some curriculum developers and/or
teachers may have classes that focus on one context (e.g., a “Transportation and Logistics” class)
while others may implement the contexts as units or individual lessons. Unlike the eight
standards and eight practices, students need not master all eight contexts. Regardless of how the
contexts are used, curriculum developers and teachers should always start with the standards and
contexts as the foundations for teaching and learning.
Table 2
Technology and engineering practice expectations by grade band [1, p.72].
Implementing STEL
STEL [1] is available at https://www.iteea.org/STEL.aspx. Several studies have analyzed STEL
and demonstrated how it can be used to guide the development of integrated STEM teaching and
learning experiences in Pk-12. Han et al. [17] described how STEL promotes interdisciplinary
connections between STEM subjects while upholding technology and engineering as a
disciplinary integrator. Moreover, they found the emphasis on engineering design throughout
STEL helps educators incorporate societal concerns, teach disciplinary knowledge and skills
from various content areas, and increase students’ problem-solving abilities [17]. Another
analysis found a greater emphasis on safety concepts (encompassing design considerations,
testing, and construction of design solutions) embedded throughout the STEL document in
comparison to other STEM-related standards documents and frameworks [18].
STEL has also been considered helpful in guiding technology and engineering teaching and
learning internationally. Choon-Sig [19] noted that the decrease from 20 standards and 279
benchmarks in STL [6] to eight standards and 142 benchmarks in STEL [1] would be beneficial
for lessening the learning burden placed on Korean students. They concluded that the focus on
Pk-12 would increase the influence of STEL, and the structure (core disciplinary standards,
practices, and technology and engineering contexts) could help enhance the technological and
engineering literacy of students in Korea [19].
Researchers and educators have shared numerous examples demonstrating how STEL can be
used in a practical way to guide purposeful integrated STEM teaching and learning experiences.
Bartholomew et al. [20] showed how a STEL aligned lesson about automated structures could be
developed using Danielson’s Framework for Teaching [21], Wiggins and McTighe’s
Understanding by Design [22], and the 6E Learning byDesign model [23]. Other examples have
demonstrated how lessons within the contexts of biomimicry [17], reading/literacy and
computational thinking [24], and artificial intelligence [25] centered around engineering design
can integrate content and practices from STEL, NGSS, and the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) to provide rigorous integrated STEM learning experiences.
To help teachers and curriculum developers implement STEL there have been a number of
presentations, videos, crosswalks to other standards, lesson plans, an app, and other user-friendly
resources developed. The crosswalks can help teachers align their lessons to the CCSS in
language arts and mathematics, NGSS, Project Lead the Way (PLTW), and the National
Assessment of Educational Progress Technology and Engineering Literacy (NAEP TEL)
framework. The STEL eTool offers a robust search function that aids with lesson development
and allows educators to easily share their lesson plans. Lastly, the ITEEA STEM Center for
Teaching and Learning (STEM CTLTM) provides overviews of STEL as well as professional
development to help schools develop and implement STEL aligned instruction.
There remain challenges for the implementation of STEL despite the emerging resources,
translations, and research. For example, the field should look at the implementation of other
standards when it comes to equity and access [26]. Additionally, there were still debates during
the development of STEL that need to be rectified by the field:
Despite this common goal, there were still concerns about the structure and
content of the standards in relation to past standards documents. This resulted in a
thought-provoking debate during one of the whole-group meetings in Chinsegut.
These concerns were well summarized by one participant, ‘Educators will benefit
from these revised standards because they do a better job of clarifying what we
value in T&E education. However, if we fail to take ownership of the ‘context
areas’ by not raising them to the level of standards and benchmarks, I think we are
doing a huge disservice to our teachers and teacher educators, especially at the
secondary level’ [26, p. 12].
Codifying a discipline in Pk-12 education through standards is a complex task that will never
have complete consensus. The development of STEL, however, was inclusive, rigorous, and
well-grounded upon the epistemological foundations of technology and engineering education.
Now it is time for research and practice to shape the implementation of STEL and the field
overall.
References
[1] Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and
engineering in STEM education. International Technology and Engineering Educators
Association (ITEEA), Reston, Virginia, 2020. [Online]. www.iteea.org/STEL.aspx
[2] Improving instruction in industrial arts: Bulletin on standards of attainment in industrial arts
teaching. American Vocational Association, Washington, DC, 1929.
[3] P. Reed, “Technology education standards in the United States: history and rationale,” in
Handbook of technology education, M. J. de Vries, Ed. Springer International Publishing,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_9-1
[4] W. E. Dugger, A. E. Bame, C. A. Pinder, & D. C. Miller. (1981). Standards for industrial
arts programs. Industrial Arts Program, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, 1981.
[5] W. E. Dugger, A. E. Bame, C. A. Pinder, & D. C. Miller. Standards for technology education
programs, International Technology Education Association (ITEA), Reston, Virginia,
1985.
[6] Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (3rd Ed.).
International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA), Reston,
Virginia, 2007. [Online]. www.iteea.org/Technological_Literacy_Standards.aspx
[7] P. Newbery, & L. S. Hallenbeck, “Role of standards in different subjects,” In J. M. Ritz, W.
E. Dugger, & E. N. Israel, Eds., Standards for technological literacy: the role of teacher
education (Council on Technology Teacher Education, 51st Yearbook). Peoria, IL, USA:
Glencoe McGraw-Hill, 2002, pp.11-46.
https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/19151
[8] P. N. Foster, “Technology in the standards of other school subjects,” The Technology
Teacher, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 17–21, 2005.
[9] Next generation science standards: for states, by states. NGSS Lead States. National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013. doi:10.17226/18290.
[10] S. Bartholomew, “Who Teaches the STE in STEM?” The Technology & Engineering
Teacher, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 14-19, 2015
[11] T. S. Love and J. G. Wells, "Examining correlations between preparation experiences of US
technology and engineering educators and their teaching of science content and
practices," International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 28, no. 2, pp.
395-416, 2018.
[12] National Science Teaching Association, “Safety and the next generation science standards,”
NSTA, Arlington, VA, 2020 [Online]. Available:
https://static.nsta.org/pdfs/Safety%20and%20the%20Next%20Generation%20Science%2
0Standards_29Oct2020_FINAL.pdf
[13] T. S. Love and K. R. Roy, “Who should make your maker spaces?,” ASEE Prism, vol. 28,
no. 2, p. 54, 2018.
[14] L. Katehi, G. Pearson, & M. Feder, (Eds.). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding
the status and improving the prospects, National Academies Press, Washington, DC,
2009.
[15] ITEEA Standards for Technological Literacy Revision Project: Background, Rationale, and
Structure, International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA),
Reston, VA, 2018. https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=151454&v=e868d0d8
[16] P. A. Reed, “Reflections on STEM, standards, and disciplinary focus,” Technology and
Engineering Teacher, vol. 71, no. 7, pp. 16-20, 2018.
[17] J. Han et al, "Sharpening STEL with integrated STEM.(science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics; Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy)," Technology
and Engineering Teacher, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 24-29, 2020.
[18] T. S. Love et al, "Safety in STEM education standards and frameworks: A comparative
content analysis," Technology and Engineering Teacher, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 34-38, 2020.
[19] L. Choon-Sig, “Exploring technological and engineering literacy standards,” The Journal of
Education, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1-17, 2020.
[20] S. Bartholomew, T. Loveland and V. Santana, "Writing standards based lesson plans to
Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy," Technology and Engineering
Teacher, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 14-23, 2020.
[21] Framework for teaching, The Danielson Group, Chicago, IL, 2022.
https://danielsongroup.org/framework
[22] G. Wiggins and J. McTighe, Understanding by design, Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development (ASCD), Washington, DC, 2005.
[23] 6E learning byDesign, International Technology and Engineering Educators Association
(ITEEA), Reston, VA, 2018.
https://www.iteea.org/STEMCenter/6ELearningbyDeSIGN.aspx
[24] T. S. Love and C. J. Griess, "Rosie Revere's orangutan dilemma: Integrating computational
thinking through engineering practices," Science and Children, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 51-57,
2020.
[25] E. Sung and J. Kim, "Teaching artificial intelligence in technology and engineering
education," Technology and Engineering Teacher, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 20-24, 2021.
[26] T. Loveland et al, “Jackson’s Mill to Chinsegut: the journey to STEL,” Technology and
Engineering Teacher, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 8-13, 2020.
